You could have been reading dozens of books and articles about the recent financial crisis and the U.S. government’s response to it and still be inclined to believe moral hazard and ‘bail-outs’ as a preferred mode of response to crises were something unheard of. Which just goes to show how ignorant one can be.

Joshua Green’s profile really helped me put events into perspective. Geithner learned first-hand about the dangers of taking a gradualist approach to a banking crisis as an assistant Treasury attaché in the U.S. embassy in Tokyo. He was part of the crucial team that helped Mexico sustain its troubles. And by the end of the Clinton era, a basic method of responding to financial crisis had emerged: quickly flood the market with money to restore confidence.

There is a lot more in that article to make you think, but that point really made me flinch. If you’re convinced that this exact response mechanism creates more problems than it solves, like I do, although you can just as well see things differently, then you have a much larger and much more established problem at hand than you previously thought.

This profile also reveals how much of our prevailing thinking about the origins of crises and whom to blame etc is shaped by story-telling that bears little to no resemblance to actual reality. As Nassim Taleb’ said, “the narrative fallacy [...] is associated with our vulnerability to overinterpretation and our predilection for compact stories over raw truths.”

The German feuilleton and ‘literary establishment’ have been discussing this for the last few weeks, accomplishing nothing. Whole magazine issues have dealt with the plagiarism charges, coming to no concrete result whatsoever.

Of course, art is an utterly subjective manner and basically follows arbitrary rules all the time.

But there is a clear distinction to be made between remixing the works of others and purporting that one has written an original novel. Both are forms of art, but while remixing derives its value at least to a certain extent from the parts that are remixed, originality by definition derives its value from creating something original.

It is a distinction that has to be made independently of any specific work as it’s a basic issue of authorship, originality and the moral compass of an author. Plagiarism is not limited to works of fiction. It is also – perhaps even more so – an important issue in academia and science. Both fields recognize the importance of acknowledging previous works and established authors. As original research is not possible without knowledge of the current status quo within your academic field, creating your own voice similarly consists of having acknowledged and imitated the voices and narratives of others beforehand.

But you accomplish originality only when you transcend incorporating the work of others and add your very own distinctive contribution to it.

I think the concept of originality has to be adamantly defended in today’s remix culture. One should always distinguish clearly between the concept and value of both remixing the work of others and creating something entirely on your own.

It’s perfectly admirable for a young author ‘just’ to remix the work of others. Many famous authors have slaved away for decades before accomplishing now famous works of originality.

Clearly establishing a moral straight line between copying others and standing on the shoulders of giants to add your own contribution is what’s lacking in recent discussions. I consider this to be a failure of the ‘literary establishment’ who have proven themselves to be moral relativists and therefore deemed themselves, at least for me, not worthy of any further consideration.

The operations, approved by President Obama and begun six weeks ago, involve several dozen troops from the U.S. military’s clandestine Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), whose main mission is tracking and killing suspected terrorists. The American advisers do not take part in raids in Yemen, but help plan missions, develop tactics and provide weapons and munitions. Highly sensitive intelligence is being shared with the Yemeni forces, including electronic and video surveillance, as well as three-dimensional terrain maps and detailed analysis of the al-Qaeda network.

As part of the operations, Obama approved a Dec. 24 strike against a compound where a U.S. citizen, Anwar al-Aulaqi, was thought to be meeting with other regional al-Qaeda leaders. Although he was not the focus of the strike and was not killed, he has since been added to a shortlist of U.S. citizens specifically targeted for killing or capture by the JSOC, military officials said. The officials, like others interviewed for this article, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the operations.

Washington Post – January 27th 2010 (emphasis added)

Apparently, we are in an age where not only is it not frowned upon to freely roam and kill alien citizens on alien territory without having declared war on other countries, it also does not seem to provoke outrage if government – by which right? by whose decision? due to what evidence? due to which laws? – plots to kill its own citizens – and gets it done.

I strongly believe the world would be a much better place if people had a lot more liberties.

People who join you in an effort to further such a cause hopefully share your beliefs.

They may as well have other beliefs, which you adamently oppose but nonetheless see associated with the organization whose basic cause you would like to see furthered.

It’s been very upsetting for me to see a fellow Libertarian (?) – someone I neither know personally nor have met before – advocating various claims by 9/11 conspiracy theorists or 9/11 critics in a magazine article.

The reason this has been upsetting for me is that I strive to think as rationally and follow the scientific method and think logically as much as I can. Coincidentally, I have read up on the issue of 9/11 conspiracy theories over christmas, well before I read about the article. I have found the conspiracy theories – after much rational deliberation and considering the facts proven by the scientific method – to be totally wanting.

After careful consideration, there exist, in my view, no facts indicating any kind of conspiracy whatsoever and there are no rational arguments to be made for those conspiracies – and thereby against the facts which the public knows about 9/11 – which hold up under rational scrutiny and under adherence to the scientific method. There are no “facts” or arguments that can form a rational case for scepticism concerning 9/11.

I believe humans often think irrationally – sometimes understandably so, sometimes not. And they do seem to fall for conspiracy theories every so often.

But what I will never understand is why an author who supposedly spent “thousands of hours” on a subject still holds irrational beliefs contrary to all kinds of evidence.

I also believe that everyone has the right to hold his own views and express them. So Oliver Janich is absolutely free to state his own opinion, of course.

As am I. These are the major reasons I believe the conspiracy theories and purported “facts” about 9/11 (as stated in the Focus Money article “Terroranschläge vom 11. September 2001: Wir glauben euch nicht!“) are utterly irrational, to say the least:

1. The most basic premise the conspiracy theorists fail to understand is that the burden of proof is on them. They are the ones who try to dispute the facts and try to make one believe in a different explanation for the events, so they must prove that current wisdom is incorrect. Even if you buy into their “it’s a conspiracy, so how can you prove anything without being a conspirator” argument, they could still start with any minor detail that proves the facts and the official explanation for 9/11 to be wrong and work it from there. People cannot just make stuff up and expect other people to believe their premises and dispute their ridiculous claims. It’s the other way round – start disputing the facts.

2. Conspiracy theorists often play on people’s worries about governments playing tricks on them and other emotions. Playing on one’s emotions is a clever tactic, but doesn’t make their points any more believable, if considered rationally.

3. Conspiracy theorists assert that it is ‘impossible’ to hit the Pentagon with a Boeing in such a maneuvre. A Dutch TV show took a similarly inexperienced pilot and put him in a simulator and he accomplished it three times in a row. It may be difficult, but not as difficult as the conspiracy theorists assert.

They also assert that a missile hit the Pentagon, as aircraft debris is supposedly missing. The debris is not missing, it’s here and here and here. Passenger’s DNA was found all over those parts of the Pentagon, which were hit. Lamp poles were struck down by the plane as it approached the Pentagon.

And to the supposedly “many many security cameras” watching the Pentagon: please show on any satellite image where there should have been a camera whose footage has not been released yet! There is none. Conspiracy theorists all over the world tried and couldn’t find one. The only one showing the impact actually shows a plane – though the resolution is not good.

4. Flight 93 – Why was Flight 93 not intercepted? Because NORAD had no specific targets to go after, and was waiting on the FAA to name them, not being able to do so themselves. Shut-down order or not, no fighter planes were even close. Add to that the fact that communication between NORAD and the FAA was by no means easy or as fast as today, and the “mystery” of why Flight 93 was not intercepted unravels. And by the way, they didn’t have “about an hour” to intercept planes, as the author states in his article. It was – at the most – nine minutes, which NORAD had to possibly intercept Flight 11, which then crashed into the WTC.

Also, there is no evidence whatsoever that Flight 93 was shot down. Flight-data-recorder for Flight 93 indicates nothing whatsoever that the flight could have been shot down by a missile. Faking FDR data is not only immensely difficult but has not been proven to have happened in this case, despite many a conspiracy theorist looking into it.

Also, there is no “missing debris” – what do you think this and this is?

5. I am fairly fed up by baseless accusations by now and will stop here. Read all about WTC 1 and 2 and 7 on the links given. All accusations by conspiracy theorists have been disproven. One just has to actually go read about it instead of staying in a state of disbelief.

I didn’t think I would have to ever write about something as obvious as this – and I feel sorry that I have to -, but apparently some people hold some really irrationally beliefs about 9/11. Do not count me amongst them.

Why do I feel the need to point all that out? Because I endorse those organizations anyway, for what they stand for and for what they try to accomplish. I couldn’t care less about what others may think about donating to those institutions. I think they deserve more attention and I hope to help them get to that – with all of the ten readers a month I have..

So whom did I give to (in ascending order)?

Wikileaks

They may not care about journalists in jail. They may not help journalists who are under observation by secret police forces. But they ‘produce’ scoops. They have freed more documents who were kept secret and are often – supposedly – relevant to national security than any other publication. And they have been a game-changer for freeing (mostly governmental) information from confidentiality in general; though their fundraising methods have been controversial.

There is a ridiculous notion inherent in classifying documents produced by the government (and paid for by the people) from view by the public, which Wikileaks helps expose. After the Obama administration decided not to declassify millions of documents previously scheduled for that and after censorship laws gaining governmental (and sometimes even public) support in ever more countries, here is to hoping that Wikileaks grows stronger by the day.

Please donate to Wikileaks!

TrueCrypt

TrueCrypt is – to my limited knowledge – the best encryption program available to a regular user which works like a charm. With an ever-growing support of censorship approaches and laws worldwide, I believe it to be of utmost importance that anyone is able to secure his own privacy from prying eyes. I am an ardent believer that the debate about security in our current times is framed wrongly. There is a false premise in the prevailing mass belief that there is either ‘security or privacy’. The issue at hand is simple: It’s (a false sense of) security vs liberty. But no state whatsoever, not even a totalitarian one, can guarantee absolute safety for its citizens from all enemies. The more you let the debate be defined by fear, the more liberties you give away. This is why I stand for liberty any day and am ready to accept the trade-off: a more ‘dangerous’ world, but one with great liberties.

Please donate to TrueCrypt!

Zero Hedge

Every time someone gets called a “full-blown cult hero” and a conspiracy theorist, they are either completely nuts or spot on. In the case of the anonymous finance group blog Zero Hedge, my bet is on the latter. Sure, their posts are often controversial and there seems to be some kind of ardent followership. But that’s just perception. Are they controversial because they are perceived as being anti-mainstream or are their arguments controversial on their merits? Who truly looks at them without preconceived notions?

I think contrarian voices deserve to be supported in most cases, especially in an industry exhibiting as much conformity as the finance industry does. Zero Hedge not only exposed malpractice in the finance industry but balances out the financial information one can get by providing a contrarian viewpoint. The finance world would be a worse place without Zero Hedge.

Please donate to Zero Hedge!

The Seasteading Institute

In the words of Peter Thiel, “in our time, the great task for libertarians is to find an escape from politics in all its forms – from the totalitarian and fundamentalist catastrophes to the unthinking demos that guides so-called ‘social democracy’.” One form of escape from obviously corrupted politics lies in the possibility of settling the oceans. The underlying concept of encouraging competition between governments in order to achieve better forms of government by providing people the means to chose between them, deserves as much support as it can get. Charter Cities are another important means to achieve this.

I wholeheartedly believe humanity will be better of if people can choose between governments at free will. It will provide much-needed encouragement to start experimenting. Democracy in its recent form is quite new in an historical context. There has to be something better than that. But the only way to find out is to start providing people the possibility to choose.

Please donate to The Seasteading Institute!

Why is everyone still only concerned about company bailouts when the 8th biggest country in the world (i.e. the economy of California) is failing and may soon finally be broke? It’s rated close to junk status, people.

Why don’t more people talk about the Russian-American relations as one of the major future concerns for world stability? Their meeting was a catastrophe. America will be facing its first true tests of its new ways, not just in Iran. And if it’s all “Barack by himself”, they are going to go down.

Why does no one give a sh*t about Muslims and Han Chinese killing each other in the street? Oh, sure, the graduate students and professors believe all is well in China. Well, then, no reason to worry, right? No reason to listen to the man who spent years roaming the country. Because, you know, things obviously are very simple.

What about the United Nations? They are not only not helping anywhere in the world, especially with South Korea and Iran – what with all their ridiculous “condemnations” and such -, they are even actively obstructing progress.

This “world governance” is obviously outdated and not up to today’s tasks of dealing with lots of crooks. John Bolton was probably right about the UN after all. There is a case to be made that it just wouldn’t matter if the building were to be scrapped by half. Have you ever been to any UN convention center and looked at the names of the conventions going on there? It’s astonishing. Hey everyone, the 4th conference on the 2nd proposal of the 11th commission on world peace is coming to town!

Only so many people do not mistake the superficial for the meaning of things. And they are astonished by what this world is coming to on so many levels. Sure, there is lots of hope. But there is also a lot of hypocrisy in this world, which makes people numb and indifferent to more important issues. Thankfully, there are still people, like David Rothkopf, who at least tell the world about some issues the mainstream is not aware of.

I know, just talking about it is second rate. First rate is doing something about it..

Not everyone may have an audience. But at least it ‘s now theoretically possible for ever more people around the world to be heard. Thankfully, this does not depend on whether an intelligentsia, or a ruling class considers an individual’s voice ‘worthy’ or not.

There is a distinct problem, though: Too much writing on the internet is deemed to be ‘great‘ or ‘interesting‘. I am as guilty of this as the next guy.

But not everything is great. Giving everyone the means to publish whatever they want leads to an explosion of superficial thinking. I think people basically tend to mimic the desires of others and they tend to cluster around popular opinions.

And nearly everyone falls prey to overestimating their own knowledge and insight. You see lots of articles and comments on stuff people are obviously not qualified to comment on. Yet they think they are qualified to have an opinion and criticize others. Again, I am as guilty of this as anyone.

I’m trying to get better at stiffling that impulse and only write about things I truly understand.

Don’t get me wrong: I think the internet has achieved wonderful things. We have to advance our current state of technology to help us deal with the ever growing amount of information. We need to filter stuff we, individually, consider to be superfluous, unqualified writing or plain noise. And this hasn’t happened yet and we’re still far from being good enough at it.

Until then, I see us drowning in a sea of information of – at best – mixed quality.

Eight months later, a report to the UN about Hariri’s assassination outlined a plot of astonishing complexity: a mysteriously reduced security detail, remarkably detailed intelligence on his movements and the moving of the truck into position just one minute and 49 seconds prior to the convoy passing by – all of this bore the hallmarks of a government-sponsored assassination. It implicated if not Syrian President Bashar Assad directly, then at least his inner circle.

The violent death of a charismatic figure created a huge hole in Lebanese politics – just at the time when there was a rising backlash in the country against Syrian influence in the region and its own territory.

There has been an endless meddling with investigations by the UN – its International Independent Investigation Commission is a farce and most probably a disguise for a politically-agreed “blame scenario” to settle the issue and to further Syria’s standing in the peace process.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise though, that there seems to be a “breakthrough” in tribunal investigations as new evidence – obtained by Der Spiegel, a German magazine – seems to point to Hezbollah as being behind the Hariri murder.

This quite obviously reeks of a political cover-up by the UN commission.

An intact Syrian leadership may be needed to further the Middle East peace process – so it may be deemed inappropriate to implicate it in a murder of such prominence.

Whatever the reasons behind “new” evidence being discovered and dispersed among the press, it sure is surprising that Hezbollah is coming up as the villain for the first time ever.

Then why are obvious questions not being asked? Why are journalists contend to write about a “breakthrough“, when it just reeks of a cover-up and the explanation for Hezbollah’s involvement is far-fetched?

The UN has failed time and time again – just think of the Oil-for-Food Programme, Kofi Annan’s questionable role in it etc – to provide truthful statements about areas of conflict and dispute and has confined itself to obscuring the truth and giving in to political meddling in too many instances.

If someone gets payed, as journalists do, to ask at least the obvious questions and to go beyond face-value and to report about the conclusions they draw, and by all means fails in that respect, then I am not willing to pay money – and more importantly respect – for that kind of journalism anymore.

Consider me utterly unconvinced, dear Spiegel, of your reporting standards.

If a murdered Prime Minister doesn’t seem to call for your highest standards of diligence in reporting, then what does?

As Gilbert & Wilson state, our previews (i.e. mental simulations of future events) are only as good as the memories on which they are based.

There are several sources of error in this. We tend to base our previews on the most accessible rather than the most typical of all memories. Ironically, the most available memories are often of the least typical events. Furthermore, recent experiences are especially available in our memory.

These errors can have enormous consequences. Just think of the current financial meltdown. Whenever you talk to finance professionals, they are often quick to express real and honest surprise as to the extent of the crisis now unfolding. No one could have seen that coming, they say. 

Although one should not let them off the hook to easily – for some have truly been blissfully ignorant in chasing bonuses -, a case can be made that they truly did not foresee these consequences of their actions. Let’s not consider how realistic that assessment is.

Instead, let us focus on another issue which I deem to be even more important: what will society as a whole learn from the recent crisis?

Considering human psychology and judgement errors, we apparently will make much too dire predictions of the future in the short term as we overestimate the importance of the crisis. But when things have picked up again, we are also very likely to forget much about the causes for the crisis and the lessons that should be learned from it.

The bottom line is this: We will probably learn a lot in the short time, a bit in the medium term but will remain ignorant to the enormous risks inherent in our current (financial / institutional / political) system in the long term.

In order to learn from our mistakes and to not let all the current hurting be in vain, society has to initiate a mechanism to not let us forget.